Small doses of knowledge can be used to inspire the desire to learn, or it can make some complacent. Depending on the size of the group you probably got a couple of each. They are responsible for what they do with the mini-lesson you gave them. I think that you did well by them. Heck, I could even argue that if they learned to ride their computer, they may well be a lot safer now than when they had no clue what NDL was and how their DC could help them avoid it.
Do you think computers encourage risky diving in new/ young divers?
- Thread starter formernuke
- Start date
Please register or login
Welcome to ScubaBoard, the world's largest scuba diving community. Registration is not required to read the forums, but we encourage you to join. Joining has its benefits and enables you to participate in the discussions.
Benefits of registering include
- Ability to post and comment on topics and discussions.
- A Free photo gallery to share your dive photos with the world.
- You can make this box go away
Small doses of knowledge can be used to inspire the desire to learn, or it can make some complacent. Depending on the size of the group you probably got a couple of each. They are responsible for what they do with the mini-lesson you gave them. I think that you did well by them. Heck, I could even argue that if they learned to ride their computer, they may well be a lot safer now than when they had no clue what NDL was and how their DC could help them avoid it.
seeker242
Contributor
- Messages
- 16,389
- Reaction score
- 5,206
- # of dives
- 1000 - 2499
Think I agree. I drove the same in the '70s and early '80s without the belt on as I did since with it on after getting that f*&^ing ticket. I use a clip to keep the belt loose so I (think) I am legal and the cops can see it over my shoulder--I drive the same.
Funny how one state/province brought in the law then all others (except NH) followed. Now we just accept that we all must wear them-- not unlike the gradual turnover to dive computers.
Potentially yes. There's a concept called risk compensation, which posits that people behave with less caution when they perceive a wider safety margin. It's generally thought that this does not completely eliminate the benefits of safety improvements, but it does mitigate them somewhat.
- Messages
- 16,389
- Reaction score
- 5,206
- # of dives
- 1000 - 2499
Agree. A seat belt is somewhat like a dive buddy. Most of the time the buddy can be a plus and help you, but sometimes could get you in trouble (instabuddy panic puts you at risk-- seat belt in water or fire can kill you). A computer may be viewed similarly. When understood and followed correctly it is a big plus. I you fool around too close to the NDL then depend on it to work out your deco on the ascent, not so good.
JaminBrown
Registered
HOW.. WHU... AAAAAAHHHHH.
I'm a total newb with only my Open Water cert and on my first post-certification dives I was watching my Depth, NDL, and PSI regularly. I don't understand how AOW divers didn't know this.
Granted, I was on a liveaboard dive cruise, diving multiple times a day with some of our first dives down to 100'. And the crew was great about telling everyone to watch our NDL carefully. But I knew it was a thing to check!
You got the scuba equivalent of immersion language training, getting more dives right away than a lot of rec divers get in their first several years and hanging around with other divers on the liveaboard eating, sleeping and talking diving all day long. That sounds like a great introduction to diving. But it puts you in a distinct minority.
Rickk
Contributor
I was taught to put the console through the BC, under my arm and positioned so that the gauges were showing with just a need to glance down, I still dive this way and can always take a quick look at my gauges. I also dive with my left hand holding my right wrist so my DC is also in an easy to see and read position at all times.
Just like driving where I scan the measurements every couple of minutes I can and do check my DC and gauges every couple of minutes. I am not using an air integrated computer, so I do a quick mental calculation on my air consumption to see how much time I have left and to track my progress.
It is not the presence of a DC that encourages risky behaviors, do you really think that someone who learned on tables cannot ignore the dive planning and thinking about what is happening? Did no one do risky dives before computers were invented?
It comes to training, I was lucky I had good grounding in the basics on my OW course. Constantly checking gauges was drilled into me. I am an engineer and also once took a private pilot course, safety, redundancy and constant checking, then thinking through what the instruments are really telling me, are just part of what makes me tick.
In young engineers I see an over-reliance in technology, if the computer says it then it must be true, no allowance for GIGO ( garbage in garbage out) or a failure of the technology. New and young divers are the same.
I came up when the technology was unreliable and still look for multiple confirmation on critical information.
I am just out there to have fun, blow bubbles and look at the pretty fishes. I am not out there to prove anything to anyone. I set my computer to a conservative profile and avoid going near the NDL. I would rather come up 5 minutes early with 100 bar air in the tank than risk getting bent.
If I see a diver exhibiting risky behaviors I will inform the DM and let them deal with it. If the behaviors continue I may ask not to be grouped with that diver, I will refuse them as an instabuddy. It has never happened to me yet but in extreme cases, where the DM and dive operator refused to take corrective actions, not to protect the bad diver but to protect me from the bad diver, then I would simply find a new dive operation to dive with.
Just like driving where I scan the measurements every couple of minutes I can and do check my DC and gauges every couple of minutes. I am not using an air integrated computer, so I do a quick mental calculation on my air consumption to see how much time I have left and to track my progress.
It is not the presence of a DC that encourages risky behaviors, do you really think that someone who learned on tables cannot ignore the dive planning and thinking about what is happening? Did no one do risky dives before computers were invented?
It comes to training, I was lucky I had good grounding in the basics on my OW course. Constantly checking gauges was drilled into me. I am an engineer and also once took a private pilot course, safety, redundancy and constant checking, then thinking through what the instruments are really telling me, are just part of what makes me tick.
In young engineers I see an over-reliance in technology, if the computer says it then it must be true, no allowance for GIGO ( garbage in garbage out) or a failure of the technology. New and young divers are the same.
I came up when the technology was unreliable and still look for multiple confirmation on critical information.
I am just out there to have fun, blow bubbles and look at the pretty fishes. I am not out there to prove anything to anyone. I set my computer to a conservative profile and avoid going near the NDL. I would rather come up 5 minutes early with 100 bar air in the tank than risk getting bent.
If I see a diver exhibiting risky behaviors I will inform the DM and let them deal with it. If the behaviors continue I may ask not to be grouped with that diver, I will refuse them as an instabuddy. It has never happened to me yet but in extreme cases, where the DM and dive operator refused to take corrective actions, not to protect the bad diver but to protect me from the bad diver, then I would simply find a new dive operation to dive with.
This is somewhere along the lines of what I was going to post by example...
When Mrs Flush and I got our first computers I went way down the rabbit hole of finding out everything about them, their operation, long term care, etc. In contrast Mrs Flush knew she had a computer. Now she gained (I think) a good bit of secondhand knowledge because of the things that I was able to coach her about when a problem or question came up about operation and how they should fit into our diving. However, I am pretty certain that if it were not for the fact of me being an enginerd about the whole thing she would still just know she has a computer. She is brilliant about a lot of things and could be about that but it just doesn't interest her as much as it does me.
I will say that the subject caused more than one boat ride of frustration when I thought she should already be versed on some aspect of them though. Once I sat down with her and said "look this is important because if you don't know what the numbers mean then how can you be safe" that seemed to resonate with her.
She is a big believer in me not collecting any life insurance on her.
JaminBrown
Registered
Very true.
My training was also one on one, not a classroom with other students. So my instructor could make sure I learned each piece before moving on. And my wife is a Master Diver with 20+ years of diving experience. And I'm a little obsessive about learning new things and spent a bunch of time doing extra credit reading during my training.
But still, it completely boggles my mind that the concept of NDL isn't understood by newer divers.
Similar threads
